There's no error here. The "D/S mintmark" is simply a case of subsurface corrosion pushing up the overlying copper plating. Copper plating...
Starburst is entirely different. It's not a strike-through error or a lamination error. Opinions differ as to its cause, but I believe it's most...
A lamination error implies that some of the metal has peeled up. A strike-through error is when the coin is struck through foreign matter. This...
It's struck through obstructing matter. Probably hardenened, cooked lubricant or a mixture of grease and metal dust. These are often called...
What does it weigh?
Probably a die chip, but the coin's poor condition prevents a definiitive diagnosis.
As I said, there are several other cud/"floating die clash" combination errors known. In addition to this 1987 cent, there is a 1974 cent, a 1989...
The photos are useless. You may be describing die scrapes. These may be caused by a mistimed feeder finger scraping across the die face.
Your summary of the chain of events is correct. The blank area on the reverse opposite the cud in vertical space is due to the fact that the...
It could be a strike-through or a lamination error. Hard to say given the resolution of the photo and the state of wear.
The raised dot is interesting. A die chip seldom develops in the middle of the field. It could be a small, circular die dent. Or, most...
Struck through grease.
It may be a lamination error, but the resolution of your photos is too poor to be sure. It's definitely not a die crack.
It looks plated.
It's a die chip.
This one of approximately six known cuds in which the broken-off die fragment was struck by one of the dies. The phenomenon is known as "floating...
It appears to be a very long, bi-level die crack. Instead of the lateral spread that is typically seen in die cracks, you've instead got vertical...
Separate names with a comma.
